Cotton Plant Bulb
Page Tools: Button: Print Page Button: Share Button: RSS

Governance

Negotiating water agreements

Regulatory Policy

 This is my second blog in a series to present highlights from the International Union for Conservation of Nature's (IUCN's) Water and Nature Initiative (WANI) toolkit. The WANI toolkit is aimed at helping communities improve water governance programs

My first blog on the WANI toolkit posted November 26th presented Rule: Reforming water governance. It provides guidance on understanding and developing basic principles of good water governance and necessary elements of a strong water governance program.

The focus of this blog - WANI's Negotiate: Reaching agreements over water - builds on the basic principles of water governance and presents practical steps on how to negotiate effective multi-stakeholder agreements on water rights and governance.

Lasting and effective agreements that address complex water issues are best achieved through constructive engagement and open and cooperative forms of negotiations. The complexity of water governance issues can include identifying and determining the value of ecosystem services, creating incentives and financing mechanisms, what capacity exists versus what is ultimately needed, how to hold responsible parties accountable to the terms of the agreement, and establishing water allotments that sufficiently fulfill all stakeholders' needs, among other issues. Negotiate: Reaching agreements over water addresses the following concepts of local water governance negotiations:

  • Competing priorities and uncertainties make water allocation decisions complex
  • Environmental flows as a governance tool to support water allocation decisions
  • Constructive engagement catalyses water solutions that are durable
  • Good water governance generates adaptive capacity

Negotiate: Reaching agreements over water begins by making the case for consensus based, multi-stakeholder negotiations - primarily that engagement of all key stakeholders from the onset will likely create more workable solutions they would not otherwise achieve. It frames water agreement negotiations on the concept of 4Rs of negotiations - rewards, rights, risks and responsibilities. For example:

  • The rewards associated with different options across all stakeholders.
  • The involuntary and voluntary water-related risks.
  • Water-related rights.
  • The various water-related responsibilities of State and non-State actors.

By identifying the 4Rs for each stakeholder group that depends or has an interest in the water being negotiated, the importance of the subject water source is discussed and negotiated in a holistic manner. This helps all stakeholders understand the needs of and the importance of solutions that are mutually beneficial to all affected stakeholders.

Consensus-based negotiations are best conducted through a process that involves convening appropriate stakeholders, establishing responsibilities and objectives, deliberating and establishing agreement priorities and implementing and monitoring the agreement. The resultant strong and effective partnerships will improve the long-term implementation of the agreement.

Developing multi-stakeholder water governance is a long-term process that involves continued engagement and negotiations. It unpacks constructive approaches such as Multi-Stakeholder Platforms (MSPs) and Consensus Building, and finally focuses on the diversity of agreements that can be produced to create more effective long-term water allocation and use agreements. MSPs are forums that focus on

  • Sharing knowledge, experiences and perspectives
  • Generating and exploring options
  • Informing and shaping negotiations and decisions

They create an open forum where differences are recognized and all parties gain a better understanding of complex issues. The MSPs are most effective when they are open to all vested stakeholders. This is best assured by mapping stakeholders who impact or are impacted by the allocation of rights to the subject water source.  These stakeholders can be prioritized by their influence on or impact related to the 4Rs of negotiation - e.g. entities who currently have direct responsibilities over or rights to the source of water and those who would be impacted by changes to water use or allocation.

The value of Consensus Building has many benefits including focusing on mutual gains by focusing on interests and negotiating across multiple issues, it often prioritizes scientific data over self-interests and is aimed at reaching mutually acceptable agreements that all parties can and will implement.

Water agreements will require continued monitoring and adjustments over time. The partnerships and processes developed through the above mentioned concepts will likely result in lasting positive exchange and cooperation among all participating stakeholders.

You must be in the logged in and part of the Founder's group to view comments

This blog requires you to login to leave a comment.


LOGIN
Founders members please log in for additional content.